(07-03-2013 07:20 PM)Averroes Wrote: Let's forget God and focus on the Burden of Proof argument, which can be about anything. Is it true, that the burden is always on the one claiming existence? That is the issue. I say No.

(07-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: Also, a dispute is not always one claim against another. One of the main disputes on this forum is about one claim, 'There is a god'. Most of us (with the exception of the gnostics) are not making a counter-claim, we are reserving belief in claim because no evidence is ever given in support of the claim.

Well, it can be "Claim" versus "I dont know", but then I wouldnt call it a dispute. Because for me, "I don't know" means "I think the chances are roughly equal", or "I dont have any clue that would help me judge", not "I cannot say one or the other with 100% certainty". That is also the essence of agnosticism for me. Do you refer to all people not explicitly claiming that god doesnt exist 100% as to agnostics (as opposed to gnostics)? While this is technically true in the sense that we always leave space for being wrong, which is laudable, and important to keep in mind, I believe we arent much more agnostic about god than we are about ghosts and vampires, and there we probably wouldnt say we are agnostic about them, we would just call them childish superstitions without dancing around it. There is a line beyond which we are technically agnostics but for the practical matter of discussion we are a-somethings, and calling ourself agnostic is alibism and/or confusing.

You say you are not making a counter claim, only reserve a belief in it, and you seem not to think that this stance constitutes a claim in itself. So let's imagine a situation when two people meet who "reserve belief in opposite claims about (non)existence of something". Do you say then that neither of them is making a claim? If so, who bears the burden? I on the contrary think that these are claims like any and should be treated as such.

(07-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: The person claiming time exists could easily bring up time dilation to settle the issue. Relative changes in velocity and strength of gravitational fields causes changes in relative time. Orbitting satellites clocks tick at different rates relative to the clocks on earth, this change has to be accounted for using einsteins theories of relativity.

Well, I dont know any details of the math in Barbour's work, but since he's got PhD. in General relativity from Cologne, I would expect him to take these phenomena into account.

(07-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: Time can be manipulated, proving that it is a property of space (Hence SpaceTime). Like other things, perception of time can vary between individuals as well. Your perception of time is dependant on the firing rates of neurons in the brain. While most peoples perception of time is pretty much the same, some experience a huge changes.

We have to distinguish between time that can be objectively measured with clock (and which undergoes those relativistic phenomena) and what it "feels like" to us. Our brain has a feature for time measurement (first type of time), but it depends on our brain structure, activity, narcotics...and sometimes fails spectacularly. So the latter (subjective time) should be left out of discussion - it is just a consequence of bad measurement apparatus in our heads. Regarding the first type of time, I dont think "non-absolute" nature of it means that it can be reduced to a property of space - in that case we would have just space. We say space-time exactly because we think it's something special, an extra dimension.

History of conversation:
Averroes: Consider again the case of Pi: you can say you believe there are no such two integers whose fraction equals Pi, but you can also take a stronger position - you can say you know that, and you can do the proof. And only then you will convince anybody.

Response
(I have to do it like this because the I have some trouble with the editor)
The second picture is particularly pretty.

When you wrote "I can't say that I know something when I don't.", I assumed you just haven't come across those proofs of nonexistence I mentioned, hence I enclosed the links (didnt mean to be smug, although it sounds like that a bit now that I read it again). Now a second interpretation occurs to me - that you think that even the existence of a mathematical proof of a claim doesn't entitle one to claim knowledge of that claim. If that is the case, our discussion probably ends here, because I can't see how one could possibly build anything meaningful on this base. Although Arguments from Arts have their own esthetical benefits :-P

Anyway, I think time has come to rest my case. My cards are on the table (and I desperately need to work on my thesis! :-) , it's helped me to sort my thoughts a lot, and it may be helpful for others to read this thread and make their own judgement. I'll probably check again in a couple of months.

PS: I think the "Disprove me!" game some folks are playing with "I and I" deserves its own thread. It's fun but offtopic.

(20-02-2013 08:18 AM)Chas Wrote: The burden is on the one making the existence claim.

Not necessarily - that was the point of my ether example. Whatever you argue about, your default position is not "it doesnt exist", but rather the position that seems intuitive to you.

The main problem with atheists holding the burden of proof is that they would be forced to believe in every single religion that was proposed in the past, all of those beliefs held now, and any future religions that are created until they could debunk them all. It simply isn't possible given a finite lifetime and the massive number of religions that exist (and could be proposed). This would even be a problem for theists, as they couldn't accept the exclusivity of their own god or gods until they disproved all of the gods except their own. In other words, their burden is only lessened by the number of gods that they subscribe to believing in.

As mentioned plenty of times here before, the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. Until that point, we are exercising "skepticism". The opposite of skepticism is credulity, and that holds the problem of falling for every con artist you encounter. If someone tried to sell you a mansion in California, you would be a fool to pass up the chance to pay a mere $100 for a mansion that you could easily sell for more... unless you understand the need for evidence, knowing that people lie or are at times mistaken. There's a good reason that someone claiming to have a house for sale has the burden of proof, rather than leaving us up to disprove it before holding on to our money.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.

(07-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: Also, a dispute is not always one claim against another. One of the main disputes on this forum is about one claim, 'There is a god'. Most of us (with the exception of the gnostics) are not making a counter-claim, we are reserving belief in claim because no evidence is ever given in support of the claim.

Well, it can be "Claim" versus "I dont know", but then I wouldnt call it a dispute. Because for me, "I don't know" means "I think the chances are roughly equal", or "I dont have any clue that would help me judge", not "I cannot say one or the other with 100% certainty". That is also the essence of agnosticism for me. Do you refer to all people not explicitly claiming that god doesnt exist 100% as to agnostics (as opposed to gnostics)? While this is technically true in the sense that we always leave space for being wrong, which is laudable, and important to keep in mind, I believe we arent much more agnostic about god than we are about ghosts and vampires, and there we probably wouldnt say we are agnostic about them, we would just call them childish superstitions without dancing around it. There is a line beyond which we are technically agnostics but for the practical matter of discussion we are a-somethings, and calling ourself agnostic is alibism and/or confusing.

There's your problem understanding what I said, It's not an "I don't know". It's a "I see no evidence this exists, or reason for it to, however I also see no reason that it could not exist, therefore I will not believe in it unless some new data comes in that supports it."

Agnosticism is simply a position of not knowing. I am agnostic in regards to the tooth fairy, vampires and ghosts. There is no rational reason to believe any of them exist, but I am not all knowing, and I do not have proof that they can not exist, therefore I am agnostic. I am agnostic when it comes to god as well. To me the chances a god exists are a quanta above nothing. And yes, it is superstitious nonsense to believe things without evidence exist just because you want them to(or for any reason beyond having proof of it's existence).

(09-03-2013 07:00 AM)Averroes Wrote: You say you are not making a counter claim, only reserve a belief in it, and you seem not to think that this stance constitutes a claim in itself. So let's imagine a situation when two people meet who "reserve belief in opposite claims about (non)existence of something". Do you say then that neither of them is making a claim? If so, who bears the burden? I on the contrary think that these are claims like any and should be treated as such.

There is no claim, I am going with the null hypothesis until reason is given to do otherwise.

Your example is hard to understand how you wrote it, but do you mean two people, one that reserves belief in the existence of something, and one that reserves belief in the lack of existence of that thing?

If so, there is no difference between the two. Neither have a burden of proof, because neither are claiming it exists.

Let's say you are thinking about the universe (I don't know if you do, but I do so I'm using this as an example) and you think, what's 2 billion light years directly behind our sun from our pov. It could be almost entirely empty space, it be the space between two stars in another galaxy, it could be a planet, perhaps with life, it could be a star. What kind of star? Red Supergiant? one like our sun? A neutron star? Perhaps a black hole is at that spot. (Forgive my rambling).

The point is, until you gather data, you DO NOT know what lies 2 billion light years in that direction. If you try to say what is in fact at that point in space, the burden of proof is on you. If they don't take your word for it, you give them the evidence that convinced you of what was there, say for example data collected from the hubble telescope.

Now imagine, saying "I don't know what's 2 billion light years on the other side of our sun".

and then someone replying with "Prove it".

I hope this clears up why saying someone that doesn't claim any knowledge has a burden of proof, is utterly ridiculous. The burden of proof is explicitely for claims.

(09-03-2013 07:00 AM)Averroes Wrote:

(07-03-2013 06:13 PM)Aspchizo Wrote: Time can be manipulated, proving that it is a property of space (Hence SpaceTime). Like other things, perception of time can vary between individuals as well. Your perception of time is dependant on the firing rates of neurons in the brain. While most peoples perception of time is pretty much the same, some experience a huge changes.

We have to distinguish between time that can be objectively measured with clock (and which undergoes those relativistic phenomena) and what it "feels like" to us. Our brain has a feature for time measurement (first type of time), but it depends on our brain structure, activity, narcotics...and sometimes fails spectacularly. So the latter (subjective time) should be left out of discussion - it is just a consequence of bad measurement apparatus in our heads. Regarding the first type of time, I dont think "non-absolute" nature of it means that it can be reduced to a property of space - in that case we would have just space. We say space-time exactly because we think it's something special, an extra dimension.

Didn't I distinguish between the two? In the objective sense, I said Time. To hint at the subjectivity of the next bit, I said Perception of time. If this wasn't clear, then my bad. Perception is inherently subjective. My main reason for bringing up subjective time was so the distinction between the two was out there.

I do not think of Time as a property of Space, it is a property of Spacetime. I don't use the two interchangably, others might. To be more clear about what were talking about, I'll give you my definitions of these terms.

Space is essentially a three dimensional grid (X,Y,Z) in which all matter and energy resides, this grid is bent by mass.

Time is the dimension of change, changes that occur in the position or state of matter and energy in Space.

SpaceTime is simple, you really just squeeze those two definitions together. It is the four dimensional grid that contains the past, present and future positions and states of the matter and energy that reside in the system.

I don't know if you agree with my definition of time, but I see it as the progression of events. It is not a spacial dimension, which is why you may be confused as to why it is called a dimension. I until recently actually didn't like it being called a dimension either. But each dimension we recognize (X,Y,Z) add two key properties to our universe, two 'directions' if you will. Time is just the same, only it adds the directions we know of as future and past.

Events are a direct result of having time. Without time, the universe would still be in the exact same state it was in when it first appeared.

(09-03-2013 07:41 AM)Averroes Wrote: Consider again the case of Pi: you can say you believe there are no such two integers whose fraction equals Pi, but you can also take a stronger position - you can say you know that, and you can do the proof. And only then you will convince anybody.

Let's forget God and focus on the Burden of Proof argument, which can be about anything. Is it true, that the burden is always on the one claiming existence? That is the issue. I say No.

When you wrote "I can't say that I know something when I don't.", I assumed you just haven't come across those proofs of nonexistence I mentioned, hence I enclosed the links (didn't mean to be smug, although it sounds like that a bit now that I read it again). Now a second interpretation occurs to me - that you think that even the existence of a mathematical proof of a claim doesn't entitle one to claim knowledge of that claim. If that is the case, our discussion probably ends here, because I can't see how one could possibly build anything meaningful on this base.

No problem and not really the case - at least not for me - I'm all for mathematical proofs. However from previous experience, someone demanding existence of an imagined thing will often not accept scientific or even mathematical proof of nonexistence. Also from previous experience, they will most likely take your scientific or mathematical proof, show how you incorrectly interpreted it, and show how it actuallyproves existence!! That's really annoying.

Also, when one is arguing over something which is nonexistent it might behoove one to temporarily acknowledge it's existence or at least define it, in order to prove it's nonexistence. Now, for the sake of argument, I can do that... and you can do that.... but very often for someone demanding existence... nope, not going to work. This is where the claimant stops everything and says, "Ah ha! So, you admit existence!! Thanks, I win this argument!!!" and runs away before nonexistence has been shown the light of day.

Been there, done that, futility is a drag.

It is an extreme rarity for fact to influence faith to drop it's pretense.
***